[Bob Lombard[_2_]]

For the past couple years I have had Ohm Walsh "Super Two' speakers in
my 'number one' sound system. A recent room reorganization resulted in
an increase in reflective surfaces (from CDs in wall racks). The
speakers, which radiate their output 360 degrees around them, were
setting up a, ah, sonic boom interaction with some of those surfaces.
While I figured out what to do about it, I replaced the Ohm Walshes with
AR5 boxes that I've owned since 1972. Most of the booming went away, but
I discovered that I was very aware of the position of the sound sources.
The 'sound stage' was gone, replaced by two point sources. Must be I've
lost the ability to imagine it.

I have since place some plastic foam panels in strategic places, and
gone back to the Ohm Walsh speakers, but am wondering if modern speakers
of the same general physical construction as the AR5s still exhibit that
unfortunate 'feature' (directionality?).

[Walt]

On 1/16/2013 11:09 PM, Bob Lombard wrote:
t am wondering if modern speakers
of the same general physical construction as the AR5s still exhibit that
unfortunate 'feature' (directionality?).


Yes, they do for the most part. The "bounce the sound all around the
room" approach as pioneered by Bose and Ohm has gone out of fashion.
"Surround sound" as provided by multiple speakers is the current fashion
if you want that.

Personally, I prefer the traditional 'point source' stereo pair to
either, but that's just me.

--
//Walt

[Bob Lombard[_2_]]

On 1/17/2013 11:12 PM, Walt wrote:
On 1/16/2013 11:09 PM, Bob Lombard wrote:
t am wondering if modern speakers
of the same general physical construction as the AR5s still exhibit that
unfortunate 'feature' (directionality?).

Yes, they do for the most part. The "bounce the sound all around the
room" approach as pioneered by Bose and Ohm has gone out of fashion.
"Surround sound" as provided by multiple speakers is the current fashion
if you want that.

Personally, I prefer the traditional 'point source' stereo pair to
either, but that's just me.

There are 'points for and against' of all of those approaches, I guess.
And the large surface radiators like the Magnepans are another approach.
I know a few people who prefer to listen to piano music through one
'traditional' speaker. One instrument - one sound source.

Sometimes I wonder if the 'proper' approach to high-end audio should be
to start with the physical sound reproducers, and work backward from
there. Well, maybe that really is the way it's done, and the perception
of it gets lost in the details. ?

[Greg Wormald]

In article ,
Bob Lombard wrote:

I have since place some plastic foam panels in strategic places, and
gone back to the Ohm Walsh speakers, but am wondering if modern speakers
of the same general physical construction as the AR5s still exhibit that
unfortunate 'feature' (directionality?).

A combination of quality speakers (maybe not the AR5s--I'm not familiar
with them, but that general configuration) and good set-up should be
capable of turning two point sources into a broad spread of music with
good imaging. This will be at least between the speakers and may well
extend outside that, depending on the room.

The Ohms splash the sound around much more than conventional drivers and
generally give a very 'spacious' sound rather than focussed imaging. You
probably won't get that spacious sound without that sort of output.

What is 'better' is of course a matter of preference.

Greg

[Bob Lombard[_2_]]

On 1/18/2013 10:34 AM, Greg Wormald wrote:
In article ,
Bob Lombard wrote:

I have since place some plastic foam panels in strategic places, and
gone back to the Ohm Walsh speakers, but am wondering if modern speakers
of the same general physical construction as the AR5s still exhibit that
unfortunate 'feature' (directionality?).
A combination of quality speakers (maybe not the AR5s--I'm not familiar
with them, but that general configuration) and good set-up should be
capable of turning two point sources into a broad spread of music with
good imaging. This will be at least between the speakers and may well
extend outside that, depending on the room.

The Ohms splash the sound around much more than conventional drivers and
generally give a very 'spacious' sound rather than focussed imaging. You
probably won't get that spacious sound without that sort of output.

What is 'better' is of course a matter of preference.

Greg

Yeah, I think you are right about the /possibility/ of a good 'sound
stage' using conventional speakers, at least I thought I had that in
some past setups. I suppose if I had a useful way of arranging it, I
would listen to music by soloists and small ensembles using the AR5s,
and larger ensembles using the Ohm Walsh speakers. I use the living room
system for both music and videos, and the multichannel (Pioneer)
receiver doesn't have the A -B speaker choices that a music-dedicated
amp would have. Hmm; I do have amps in storage. I wonder if there is
room... rats, I probably can't get away with splitting the output from
the player. Um, can I?

[Greg Wormald]

In article ,
Bob Lombard wrote:

I probably can't get away with splitting the output from
the player. Um, can I?

Sure, a simple Y connector should do that.

Caution--Linn proved years ago that speakers in a room, when unpowered,
affected the sound. That's why their dealers had to go to a "one speaker
system per room" demo procedure.

Again, whether that is of significance for you is something you will
have to determine, like the AR5s vs. the Ohms. How much time do you
spend listening seriously to two channel, and how important is that time
to you? How important is the imaging, or do you really prefer the
spacious sound that wide angle radiators give?

For me listening is very important, and I do lots of it. I don't even
have a multi-channel system or a TV in my main room.

Greg

[Walt]

On 1/18/2013 1:07 PM, Bob Lombard wrote:

Yeah, I think you are right about the /possibility/ of a good 'sound
stage' using conventional speakers, at least I thought I had that in
some past setups. I suppose if I had a useful way of arranging it, I
would listen to music by soloists and small ensembles using the AR5s,
and larger ensembles using the Ohm Walsh speakers. I use the living room
system for both music and videos, and the multichannel (Pioneer)
receiver doesn't have the A -B speaker choices that a music-dedicated
amp would have. Hmm; I do have amps in storage. I wonder if there is
room... rats, I probably can't get away with splitting the output from
the player. Um, can I?


It's generally acceptable to split a source with a Y cable and send it
to two inputs. Most modern equipment has input impedance of ~10k ohm
and typical output impedance of ~100 ohms, so it won't complain or
notice if it sees a 5k load instead of 10k. (rule of thumb is to have a
10-1 ratio of input to output impedance)

Vintage stuff with transformers that want to see 600 ohms would be a
problem, but your CD player should work fine with a Y cable feeding it
to two different amps.



--
//Walt

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Greg Wormald" wrote in message
...

A combination of quality speakers (maybe not the AR5s--I'm not familiar
with them, but that general configuration) and good set-up should be
capable of turning two point sources into a broad spread of music with
good imaging. This will be at least between the speakers and may well
extend outside that, depending on the room.

The Ohms splash the sound around much more than conventional drivers and
generally give a very 'spacious' sound rather than focussed imaging. You
probably won't get that spacious sound without that sort of output.

What is 'better' is of course a matter of preference.

You can have both. They are not mutually exclusive. It is a simple matter of
positioning the speakers in the room. Start at 1/4 of the room width in
from the side walls, and I use that same distance out from the front wall.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Bob Lombard" wrote in message
...
On 1/17/2013 11:12 PM, Walt wrote:
On 1/16/2013 11:09 PM, Bob Lombard wrote:
t am wondering if modern speakers
of the same general physical construction as the AR5s still exhibit that
unfortunate 'feature' (directionality?).

Yes, they do for the most part. The "bounce the sound all around the
room" approach as pioneered by Bose and Ohm has gone out of fashion.
"Surround sound" as provided by multiple speakers is the current fashion
if you want that.

Personally, I prefer the traditional 'point source' stereo pair to
either, but that's just me.

There are 'points for and against' of all of those approaches, I guess.
And the large surface radiators like the Magnepans are another approach. I
know a few people who prefer to listen to piano music through one
'traditional' speaker. One instrument - one sound source.

Sometimes I wonder if the 'proper' approach to high-end audio should be to
start with the physical sound reproducers, and work backward from there.
Well, maybe that really is the way it's done, and the perception of it
gets lost in the details. ?

No, the proper approach to high fidelity audio is to start with the image
model of live sound and work backwards to the radiation pattern and room
positioning required to reconstruct it. You lost the reflected sound from
around your speakers and the soundstage disappeared. Well duh. Putting foam
panels to kill the reflections is the wrong way to go.

Gary Eickmeier

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Friday, January 18, 2013 7:34:24 AM UTC-8, Bob Lombard wrote:
On 1/17/2013 11:12 PM, Walt wrote:
On 1/16/2013 11:09 PM, Bob Lombard wrote:
t am wondering if modern speakers
of the same general physical construction as the AR5s still exhibit that
unfortunate 'feature' (directionality?).

Yes, they do for the most part. The "bounce the sound all around the
room" approach as pioneered by Bose and Ohm has gone out of fashion.
"Surround sound" as provided by multiple speakers is the current fashion
if you want that.

Personally, I prefer the traditional 'point source' stereo pair to
either, but that's just me.

There are 'points for and against' of all of those approaches, I guess.
And the large surface radiators like the Magnepans are another approach.
I know a few people who prefer to listen to piano music through one
'traditional' speaker. One instrument - one sound source.

Unfortunately, a lot of that is the result of incompetent microphone
technique. For some reason, lots of recording engineers insist on
close-up stereo miking of a piano. Since by definition, "stereo"
miking has come to mean that one mike feeds the left channel of the
recording an the other mike feeds the right, you end up with a piano
(on playback) that's spread all the way across the room. This is
every kind of wrong. If one is recording an ensemble that contains a
piano that needs to be highlighted, a single, mono mike is more than
sufficient. One merely pan-pots that mike to place the piano in the
same place in the recording, that it occupies in real space. I do this
all the time. I use an X-Y or MS stereo mike over all and then just
one mike on the piano. I merely crack the gain on that mike to give
the piano just the right amount of "presence" to blend-in (and yet be
heard) with the rest of the ensemble. The stereo mike gives the
overall soundstage, and the accent mike merely lifts the piano out of
the mud so that it can heard properly. In a correctly miked ensemble,
the highlighted piano is not discernible as such.

Virtually all pop and most jazz is recorded by miking the INSTRUMENTS,
rather than the space that those instruments occupy. No fiddling with
speaker types or brands or placement can fix a recording made like
that and I can well understand why some folks prefer to listen to
improperly miked piano with just one speaker. I too have no interest
in listening to a piano as wide as one's listening room, but most
listeners never think about it!

Sometimes I wonder if the 'proper' approach to high-end audio should be
to start with the physical sound reproducers, and work backward from
there. Well, maybe that really is the way it's done, and the perception
of it gets lost in the details. ?

No, that's not how it's done. In most recordings, the engineers simply
throw-up a microphone (or two) per instrument (sometimes they even use
contact mikes (yechhh!) for the instrumental part of the recording)
and record each instrument to a separate track. Then when the
instrumental part is "captured" they pan-pot each instrument into it's
approximate location in space. Then, the vocalist is brought-in and
he/she is recorded in isolation and they are recorded while listening
to the accompanying instrumentals over headphones (sometimes they
listen live, most often, the listen to a playback of a previously
recorded instrumental. Often, the instrumental is recorded in New York
or Nashville, and the recording is sent to Hollywood or London or
wherever and the vocal track is laid-down. In the final "mix", the
vocalist is usually panned to the center (I.E. equally recorded in the
left and right channel so that the image appears centered on playback)
and the level of the vocalist is raised slightly with respect to the
accompaniment to give it more "presence". Throw a bunch of artificial
reverb over the whole mess, and you have a throughly synthetic
performance that usually sounds dreadful. Most recordings are not
recorded for audio enthusiasts, but for the average listener who is
listening to iPods with earbuds, or listening in the car.

[Bob Lombard[_2_]]

On 1/19/2013 12:01 AM, Walt wrote:
On 1/18/2013 1:07 PM, Bob Lombard wrote:

Yeah, I think you are right about the /possibility/ of a good 'sound
stage' using conventional speakers, at least I thought I had that in
some past setups. I suppose if I had a useful way of arranging it, I
would listen to music by soloists and small ensembles using the AR5s,
and larger ensembles using the Ohm Walsh speakers. I use the living room
system for both music and videos, and the multichannel (Pioneer)
receiver doesn't have the A -B speaker choices that a music-dedicated
amp would have. Hmm; I do have amps in storage. I wonder if there is
room... rats, I probably can't get away with splitting the output from
the player. Um, can I?

It's generally acceptable to split a source with a Y cable and send it
to two inputs. Most modern equipment has input impedance of ~10k ohm
and typical output impedance of ~100 ohms, so it won't complain or
notice if it sees a 5k load instead of 10k. (rule of thumb is to have a
10-1 ratio of input to output impedance)

Vintage stuff with transformers that want to see 600 ohms would be a
problem, but your CD player should work fine with a Y cable feeding it
to two different amps.

Thanks for the info, Walt. Looks like I can't use that method here,
because of the problem with, ah, off-speaker interaction when the AR4s
are not in use; there's a positioning problem too. I wish I had thought
this through before bugging you folks about it.

[Bob Lombard[_2_]]

On 1/19/2013 9:50 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Greg Wormald" wrote in message
...

A combination of quality speakers (maybe not the AR5s--I'm not familiar
with them, but that general configuration) and good set-up should be
capable of turning two point sources into a broad spread of music with
good imaging. This will be at least between the speakers and may well
extend outside that, depending on the room.

The Ohms splash the sound around much more than conventional drivers and
generally give a very 'spacious' sound rather than focussed imaging. You
probably won't get that spacious sound without that sort of output.

What is 'better' is of course a matter of preference.
You can have both. They are not mutually exclusive. It is a simple matter of
positioning the speakers in the room. Start at 1/4 of the room width in
from the side walls, and I use that same distance out from the front wall.

Gary Eickmeier

I have read variations of that formula elsewhere, in reference to large
radiators e.g. the Magnepans. The Ohm company includes a variant of your
formula in the documentation that ships with its speakers. It seems to
me that, unless one has a dedicated 'listening room', the
recommendations are likely to be difficult-to-impossible to follow. I
can get to your formula with one speaker, but not the other. It's a
living room, and I need to live in it. Thanks for the suggestion though,
it encourages me to experiment within the possibilities.